Abiogenesis not part of evolution

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

BILLY
If has been stated several times here and elsewhere that the theory of evolution must encompass the theory of abiogenesis. I believe this to be false. They are two seperate, though linked, theories.

It could be shown conclusively that abiogenesis is impossible, and it would not reflect on the TOE in the slightest. The TOE assumes life for the process to get started.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

HELEN
I am currently reading Frankllin Harold's The Way of the Cell,
(2001, Oxford University Press). I not only think he disagrees with you
concerning the separation of evolution from abiogenesis, I would say he
predicates his entire book on the concept that evolution, as a process
of life, cannot be divorced from its beginnings biologically.

However as far a someone proving abiogenesis impossible (which is a
universal negative and therefore impossible itself...) and that not
disturbing the theory of evolution -- I have no doubt you are right.
That is because the theory of evolution is a matter of faith, and
nothing like a lack of evidence for abiogenesis is going to get in its
way!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
"...The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for
life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you
start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from
that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it 'climbing mount improbable' -- by
slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs
easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every
stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled
in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. ... "
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The theory of evolution not only encompasses abiogenesis, it actually
encompasses EVERYTHING in the universe. After all, the universe and
everything in it is claimed to have evolved from a "big bang" into the
various forms of matter, energy, stars, galaxies, planets, chemical
elements, compound amino acids, RNA and DNA, proto-life forms, single cell
organisms, multicellular organisms, to increasingly more complex
multicellular organisms through naturalistic processes. Now either the
cosmos evolved into these increasingly complex stages by naturalistic
processes or supernatural processes created it. The problem is that you and
some others of the evolutionary mindset want to claim that evolution is
only limited to biology. Well, biological evolutionary processes are limited
to biology. The evolutionary processes of advancing from slime mold to
sapiens are certainly different from the processes of cosmological evolution
and abiogenesis - but they are ALL evolutionary processes.

Not only that, but according to atheistic reductionary thinking we humans
are little more than conscious animated mud cakes. If life itself is
defined as merely a form of uniquely systematized functioning relationships
of complex chemicals, then where is the dividing line between biology and
abiogenesis?

If abiogenesis were impossible it most certainly WOULD impact on biological
evolution. If natural processes could not account for life's origin (and
therefore a supernatural creator is strongly implied) then a rational
acceptance of at least the possibility of a supernatural creator exists. If
this creator exists, then He could have created all the major divisions of
organisms with a built-in capacity for variation to survive diverse
ecologies yet remain within its "kind". This is what we actually observe in
the real world and in the fossil record. Without the prejudice to reduce
reality to what can be understood and experienced by the scientific method
alone and by naturalistic processes alone, the facts would be allowed to
fall into a pattern that supports creation, not evolution.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am currently reading Frankllin Harold's The Way of the Cell,
(2001, Oxford University Press). I not only think he disagrees with you
concerning the separation of evolution from abiogenesis, I would say he
predicates his entire book on the concept that evolution, as a process
of life, cannot be divorced from its beginnings biologically. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello Helen,

Anyone can say anything they want but I think you will find that the majority of scientists separate the two and are only concerned with their specific field of study and how evolution applies to it. I am a botanist and look at the evolutionary changes that have occurred in plant anatomy and morphology of vascular and non vascular plants. Also, I teach biology as do many other college teachers and as such we separate evolution from the origins of life. They are in separate chapters in separate parts of the book. Besides, the mechanisms of abiogenesis are highly speculative. We have some ideas but until there are more discoveries the process is still in a theoretical stage. I'm not sure how many scientists accept evolution and do not think that life had a naturalistic origin, however. Evolution on the other hand is, as other theories, solid and I would surmise accepted by 95 to 99% of those in biological fields.

"...The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for
life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you
start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from
that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it 'climbing mount improbable' -- by
slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs
easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every
stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled
in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. ... " <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah well, I disagree with Dawkins about a lot of things. I think he is an extremist, and I think the above is a rather intemperate remark.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The theory of evolution not only encompasses abiogenesis, it actually
encompasses EVERYTHING in the universe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it explains the origin of species by natural selection.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After all, the universe and everything in it is claimed to have evolved from a "big bang" into the various forms of matter, energy, stars, galaxies, planets, chemical elements, compound amino acids, RNA and DNA, proto-life forms, single cell organisms, multicellular organisms, to increasingly more complex multicellular organisms through naturalistic processes. Now either the cosmos evolved into these increasingly complex stages by naturalistic
processes or supernatural processes created it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Origin of Species where Darwin set out his theory says nothing of the above except the diversity of species.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The problem is that you and some others of the evolutionary mindset want to claim that evolution is only limited to biology. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All right. If the Big Bang was rejected by all scientists, what effect would that have on evolutionary biology?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, biological evolutionary processes are limited to biology. The evolutionary processes of advancing from slime mold to sapiens are certainly different from the processes of cosmological evolution and abiogenesis - but they are ALL evolutionary processes.

Not only that, but according to atheistic reductionary thinking we humans
are little more than conscious animated mud cakes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a misrepresentation of atheism. You seem to believe that one cannot have respect for humans if you do not believe in God. That is also incorrect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If abiogenesis were impossible it most certainly WOULD impact on biological
evolution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Billy: Well tell me how.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If natural processes could not account for life's origin (and
therefore a supernatural creator is strongly implied) then a rational
acceptance of at least the possibility of a supernatural creator exists. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The theory of abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution say absolutely nothing about the supernatural. There are millions who accpect Darwinism that also believe in the supernatural. Being scientific theories, they cannot encroach on that area.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If this creator exists, then He could have created all the major divisions of
organisms with a built-in capacity for variation to survive diverse
ecologies yet remain within its "kind".

That sounds an aweful lot like the theory of natural selection to me. Where did you get this notion? And why would it be necessary that organisms remain within their "kind" – a term only used by creationists?

This is what we actually observe in the real world and in the fossil record. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Billy: Well, define "kind" and you might have a case.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Without the prejudice to reduce reality to what can be understood and experienced by the scientific method alone and by naturalistic processes alone, the facts would be allowed to
fall into a pattern that supports creation, not evolution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Billy: Well, if there is a "prejudice" thus, then it is a prejudice shared by all sciences. If you can explain something with one cause rather than three, then two of those causes go out of the explanation. Oh, and the police use this method in investigation of crime. So do car mechanics when trying to trace the cause of a fault. Would you not think it odd if any of them started to accpet supernatural

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

HELEN
Hi Daneel,
I know anyone can say anything they want. And I know that origins is
separated from later diversity where biology is concerned. But when
that is insisted upon, evolution becomes a ‘floater’ with no beginning
and no ending. It’s just sort of the way things have been interpreted
to have been happening for some time.
The problem that I see is that evolution – in biology – says rather
firmly that only natural, material causes are responsible for everything
we see in the diversity of life now and in the fossil record. It only
accepts natural, material causes.

But the concept of ‘life from life’ is even older than evolutionary
biology and here is where evolution runs into its bugaboo. Abiogenesis
requires life from non-life BECAUSE only material, natural causes are
‘allowed.’ Now, if evolution will allow an immaterial and/or
non-natural cause for the origin of life, then by what logical right or
step can it then be denied that this immaterial or non-natural force
would not affect life as it develops?

Logically, evolution cannot divorce itself from abiogenesis. The
concept of a creation totally front-loaded, which is the basis for
theistic evolution arguments, essentially is the same argument as the
‘clockwinder god’ argument. Get it started and let the thing run, for
better or for worse! It totally marginalizes God in a true “God of the
gaps” argument!

I agree with you that most scientists, teaching or research, are so
involved in their own field of study that they really do not spend time
pondering some of these logical points. But that does not erase either
the logic or the points. And the fact that they are not pondered by
many has no bearing at all on whether these points are correct or not.
Truth is not truth by majority. Truth stands with or without the
majority behind it.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>from Helen:
Hi Daneel,
I know anyone can say anything they want. And I know that origins is
separated from later diversity where biology is concerned. But when
that is insisted upon, evolution becomes a ‘floater’ with no beginning
and no ending. It’s just sort of the way things have been interpreted
to have been happening for some time.
The problem that I see is that evolution – in biology – says rather
firmly that only natural, material causes are responsible for everything
we see in the diversity of life now and in the fossil record. It only
accepts natural, material causes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your beef is with science in general. Science and the scientific method makes the assumption(s) that you are talking about. They are: that there are natural causes for what we see based on natural laws, that these laws do not vary in space or in time and that humans have common perception.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But the concept of ‘life from life’ is even older than evolutionary
biology and here is where evolution runs into its bugaboo. Abiogenesis
requires life from non-life BECAUSE only material, natural causes are
‘allowed.’ Now, if evolution will allow an immaterial and/or
non-natural cause for the origin of life, then by what logical right or
step can it then be denied that this immaterial or non-natural force
would not affect life as it develops?

Logically, evolution cannot divorce itself from abiogenesis. The
concept of a creation totally front-loaded, which is the basis for
theistic evolution arguments, essentially is the same argument as the
‘clockwinder god’ argument. Get it started and let the thing run, for
better or for worse! It totally marginalizes God in a true “God of the
gaps” argument!

When it comes to biological evolution even some creationists accept (some) natural selection and talk of micro evolution. There are theists who are scientists who accept evolution as to how it explains the diversity of life today. They may or may not believe in a naturalistic origin of the first life. The concept of life from life does not exclude creation. I must think, however, that the more we find out about organic material in meteors and how simple genetic systems work it becomes harder and harder not to accept a naturalistic origin. Even then, as you know, it is still possible to interject god as a creative force that created the natural laws that allowed life to begin. So I don't think that arguing about weather evolution includes abiogenesis is that productive. It all depends on your primary assumption. Is there a God that fired the starting gun. Or did the gun go off by itself.

Logic is based on assumption, therefore, logically you can argue anything if you assume a certain premise. Why do you think that there are so many divergent points of view based on human logic? You yourself claim your views are logical. Yet there are others who claim their own are logical. The human mind is good at that. IMO it is because it is an animal mind. That's my assumption.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

The problem is that without evolution, one can only get to very simple structures and then greater complexity would have to arise by evolution of some form -- chemical evolution or whatever. So there would have to be some kind of evolution very early, even way before one had a cell with functioning genes and DNA. Various proposals I have seen are DNA organisms, RNA organisms, and PNA -- I'm not sure what that means but maybe "prion nucleic acid" where proteins influence others to fold like themselves and thus can in some sense propogate themselves. All recognize that this field is highly speculative and despite the apparent evolutionary sound of this post so far I am a creationist and do not think abiogenesis occurred. But in any event it would include some evolutionary mechanism very early.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

HELEN
Response to Daneel,
You wrote: I think your beef is with science in general. Science and
the scientific method makes the assumption(s) that you are talking
about. They are: that there are natural causes for what we see based on
natural laws, that these laws do not vary in space or in time and that
humans have common perception.

I think you left out one very important word, actually. Your first
assumption should actually state, “that there are ONLY natural causes
for what we see….”
My ‘beef’ is not that science is limited to dealing with natural,
material causes and effects. That is the nature of science. What I
object to is that science therefore declares that because it can only
work with the material and natural, that that is all there is.

I don’t think this impacts other fields as much as it does biology.
Physics deals with the physical. That’s what it is. Chemistry deals
with chemicals. That’s what it does. Astronomy deals with what can be
seen outside of our earth and geology with what the earth is made up
of. These by their very nature are dealing with physical substances and
they can be dealt with in terms of physical properties.

But biology is different. It is the study of LIFE itself in all its
various forms on earth. Now while chemists can agree upon the
definition of the various elements, and physicists can agree regarding
basic properties of matter, have you noticed that biologists cannot
agree as to the meaning and definition of life? There is something else
going on in this field. An operative cell is more than the sum of its
composite parts. And while we know what makes a rock and we are pretty
sure we know what makes a star, what on earth makes a cell live?

There is the difference. This does not change the necessity of science
to be limited to the physical properties and processes – again, that is
all science can do. But in the case of biology, to deny the possibility
of the supernatural is what is not good science. Call it ‘god of the
gaps’ if you like, but there is an incredible gap there between
chemistry and life, and it may very well be that God does belong there!

Now, in chemistry, we know what makes an element. We know pretty well
how the elements themselves form in stars. We may be wrong about parts,
certainly, but there is no giant gap that we are aware of. Physics
cheerfully plunges into cosmology when it feels like it, looking for
beginnings. They don’t try to divorce themselves from it, regardless of
frustrations.

But biologists try to separate themselves from origins when it is
origins that is even more important in this field, perhaps, than any
other. As I mentioned, I am reading Franklin Harold’s new book, The
Way of the Cell. Harold is Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology at Colorado State University. He also has the
wonderful talent of being able to write well. I do recommend the book.
Yes, of course he is an evolutionist – of the dyed in the wool variety,
the “I’d rather die than change” sort. Nevertheless, here are just some
bits from the Preface:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Life seems to me the supreme marvel of the universe – familiar,
thoroughly material, probably ubiquitous yet elusive and ultimately
mysterious….I take it that the term “life” designates a real phenomenon,
recognizable by a set of properties characteristic of some natural
objects and lacking in others; one of our goals must be to identify the
essential features that distinguish living organisms from other
things….How do lifeless chemicals come together to produce those
exquisitely ordered structures that we call organisms?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, he states very firmly that he believes the causes are entirely
physical. But at least he is not willing to separate biology from the
origin of life. If one is going to study life, which is what biologists
do, then the natural question ‘where did it come from; how did it
happen?’ must be dealt with.

That is why I am saying that biology cannot divorce itself from origins,
and if evolution is demanding – as it does – ONLY material, natural
causes, then abiogenesis is, by necessity, part of the deal.

You mentioned natural selection. Of course we accept it. We were the
first to deal with it! I know you guys don’t like ICR’s Impact
articles, but I think this one is fairly well done on the subject: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-283.htm

But natural selection has nothing to do with origins. Neither does
variation, which you also brought up as creationists ‘accepting.’ Of
course it is accepted. Every time a child is born we see it! But these
seem to me to simply be red herrings you are dragging across the path
which have nothing to do with the necessity of biology to deal with the
origin of the very thing is purports to study: life.

Lastly, yes, you can argue anything if you assume a certain premise. A
lot of people argue without even knowing their assumed premises, which I
am sure you are aware of! You mentioned many divergent points of view.
I think most have nothing to do with logic at all, but with desire – the
desire to believe something true because that is what one feels
comfortable with. Logic is the formal, precise movement from an
established premise to a conclusion.

Here is a sample:

1. Biology is the study of life.
2. Evolutionary biologists claim that everything has a natural, material
cause.
3. THEREFORE, life – according to evolutionary biologists – has a
natural, material cause.

But most of them won’t touch that bit of logic with a ten-foot pole.

To break out of that logical progression, one must admit to some kind of
possible exception for the origin of life. And if there is an exception
there, why should there not be other exceptions in other parts of the
study of biology?

Just to clarify where I stand as a creationist: I do think that
everything we are aware of does have physical and natural causes WITH
THE EXCEPTION of those things God claims were direct miracles from Him.
In other words, if the Bible does not tell me it was a miracle from God,
I’m willing to go for broke looking for the material, natural
connections. So this is not a ‘God of the gaps’ argument at all. It is
simply recognizing that God Himself has told us where naturalistic,
material causes stop and where He has dealt with things Himself,
directly. That is why I have said that I agree that the Bible is not a
scientific text book, but that it is a scientific guide. It does tell
us where the boundaries of truth are – within which we are free to have
the time of our lives exploring and discovering and working.

But I think it is because the origin of life can really only be
attributable to God that evolutionists won’t touch it. It is not
because biology is naturally separated from the origin of life. It is
not. The two are part and parcel of the same field no matter how sharp
the knife that tries to separate them.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

SOS
Hi, Billy,
You may disagree with Dawkins' position and call him an extremist but he is
a noted spokesman for many (not all) in the academic world and has tried to
popularize the concepts of atheistic evolutionary processes as the
explanation of everything. He is really just carrying the naturalistic
philosophy to its logical conclusion. Nor is Dawkins alone in this thinking.
Neither he nor I (who are at anti-poles in our theistic position) are saying
that the processes of biological evolution are the same as abiogenesis. The
history of the universe, however, and not just biological development, is
understood by naturalism to be an evolutionary process and therefore the
term evolution certainly includes but is not limited to the origin of
species, families, genera, etc. To demand that the use of the term evolution be restricted to mere biological diversification appears to
me to be an unwarranted and extremely narrow definition. In a biological
analogy, it would be like demanding that only the field of specialized
neurology could be called biology. Evolution is a paradigm that far
transcends mere biology.

SOS quote: The problem is that you and some others of the evolutionary
mindset want to claim that evolution is only limited to biology.

Billy's response:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All right. If the Big Bang was rejected by all scientists, what
effect would that have on evolutionary biology? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you are asking is not addressing the issue. If the steady-state theory
had won in preeminence over the big bang theory (or whatever the proposed
cosmological theory advanced would happen to be), it would, by necessity,
have to be an evolutionary theory in order to explain the cosmos in
naturalistic terms. Science is no longer a search for the truth in the
universe but a search for naturalistic explanations for everything. Those
naturalistic explanations can only explain the origin and development of
both any particular thing in the universe and also everything in the
universe by using evolutionary scenarios. Can you propose a scenario where
anything in the universe did not evolve by naturalistic processes from some
pre-existing entity and change through time? Did not stars and galaxies
evolve from hydrogen gas (supposedly)? Did not the higher elements evolve
through time in the bowls of stars (supposedly)? Did not life evolve from
"star stuff" as Carl Sagan put it?

SOS quote: Well, biological evolutionary processes are limited to
biology. The evolutionary processes of advancing from slime mold to sapiens
are certainly different from the processes of cosmological evolution and
abiogenesis - but they are ALL evolutionary processes.
Not only that, but according to atheistic reductionary
thinking we humans
are little more than conscious animated mud cakes.

Billy's response:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is a misrepresentation of atheism. You seem to believe that
one cannot have respect for humans if you do not believe in God. That is
also incorrect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being a former atheist, I assure you that there are many (not all) atheists
that would agree with my statement. Atheists that have subjective
existential humanists values (and most do) do care about the human condition
and seek ways to improve it and I am not trying to demean that in the
slightest. That does not change the bottom line, however, that if God does
not exist and did not create man as spiritual beings with physical bodies,
then the stark reality is that man is ultimately nothing more than a
pre-determined fancy chemical reaction. Ideals of love, hate, etc. as well
as moral values become nothing more than personal and cultural preferences
(which are themselves nothing more than the result of neurons firing and
chemical reactions in the body). Most atheists try to make some "leap of
faith" of their own to try to escape the nihilistic starkness that remains
as the logical conclusion of atheism and, as such, most atheists are not
nihilists. Yet, that is the logical conclusion of atheism. There is no
reason for our existence without God other than the subjective wishes and
purposes we place on it.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

Helen said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Logic is the formal, precise movement from an established premise to a conclusion.

Here is a sample.

1. Biology is the study of life.
2. Evolutionary biologists claim that everything has a natural, material
cause.
3. THEREFORE, life – according to evolutionary biologists – has a
natural, material cause.

But most of them won’t touch that bit of logic with a ten-foot pole.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are attempting to construct a syllogism, but the above would have had my own logic professor beating me about the head and shoulders if I submitted it! It is neither formal nor precise. And the second premiss, that evolutionary biologists claim that everything has a natural, material cause, is plainly false, since many evolutionary biologists believe in miracles.

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!